How we write our standards
Writing standards is an extensive, collaborative process that involves a range of experts, including LFP staff, extension agents, scientists, and the farmers who are likely to use the standards.
We focus on writing production standards for a specific crop or animal production system where none exist in the region. Our standards use a points-based template where each element is assigned a score. Farmers must meet a 75% point threshold to qualify for certification. Farmers can choose which elements are most appropriate to their operations and still meet the minimum threshold.
In the first phase of standards writing, we identify Stage 2 IPM (Integrated Pest Management) / ICM (Integrated Crop Management) / IFP (Integrated Fruit Production) standards that have been developed elsewhere in the world (e.g. U.S., Europe, Australia/New Zealand). These standards usually have to be modified for application to Canadian regions to take into account differences in climates, soils, pest complexes, approved chemicals, and market conditions. At this stage, LFP staff members assign preliminary points to each element, based on their understanding of the relative importance of each one.
The next phase involves reviewing the list of pesticides approved for that particular crop and classifying them as ‘green-listed’ (usable according to approved agronomic practices and approved pesticide labels), ‘yellow-listed’ (can be used on a restricted basis), or 'red-listed' (cannot be used at all). These listings are based on the crop profiles of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC) and the label database of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), and are then assessed against pesticide toxicity indicators.
LFP protocols make use of the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) scale developed by Kovacs et al. (
http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq/) to help determine the appropriateness of the pesticides registered for use on a particular crop to an ecological IPM protocol. This scale is based on the impacts of pesticides on terrestrial and aquatic organisms (including impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms), and humans. The green-amber-red categorization scheme is designed to respond to environmental issues and the needs of growers for multiple tactics for pest control.
Once LFP staff has prepared the first draft of a standard, it is circulated for review and comment, and often goes through several rounds of revisions before the interests of all stakeholders are satisfied.
The key feature of LFP standards is finding a balance between environmental improvement and economic realities. A standard that is too difficult to meet means that few farmers will have an incentive to make changes at a price they feel they can recoup in the market place. A standard that is too lenient means that too many can participate and the standard has failed to differentiate production from current conventional practices.
LFP Process for Inspections and Certification
Local Food Plus provides certification based on independent, third-party inspections by inspectors trained and accredited by the International Organic Inspectors Association and who receive additional training in inspecting for LFP standards. When LFP receives an application for certification, LFP hires an independent inspector to assess whether a farm or processor meets the LFP certification standards.
As part of the assessment process, the inspector begins by undertaking a thorough review of the farm’s or processor’s application documents. The inspector then arranges a site visit to tour the facilities and meet with the owner/manager and key personnel to learn more about the operation’s systems and practices.
In particular, during the site visit, the inspector:
- Ensures that the operation meets the LFP fixed evaluation criteria
- Evaluates the operation’s compliance with LFP scored evaluation criteria
- Assesses the operation’s overall strengths and identifies areas for improvement
Local Food Plus's contractual obligation to pay the inspector is not affected by the inspector's decision.
After completing the inspection and making a recommendation either for or against certification, the inspector submits a report to LFP, which is then sent on to an independent external reviewer. The reviewer reviews the farm application and the inspection report and assesses whether the inspection was conducted in a thorough, fair and professional manner in accordance with LFP protocols and procedures. The reviewer informs LFP of his/her decision in a written report submitted to LFP’s Certification Manager.
Local Food Plus’s contractual obligation to pay the reviewer is not affected by the reviewer's decision.
The final decision is then forwarded to the President of LFP. LFP's President reviews the report and then informs the farmer or processor of the decision. If the decision is to certify all or part of the farm or processor's operation, then the President issues an official LFP certificate identifying what farm or processor products are LFP certified.
LFP Policy on Use of LFP Certification Marks
Use of LFP's Marks is goverend by the
Terms of Use.
An LFP provincial or regional certification mark is not valid outside the region or province of issue. LFP certified producers, processors, and food companies in one province or region produce food for consumption in the same province or region in which they are certified. For example, LFP certifies Ontario producers for Ontario sales, BC producers for BC sales, PEI producers for Atlantic Canada sales, etc. LFP does not endorse out-of-province or region sales, but the nature of our current food system is such that neither LFP nor LFP certified producers can always control where all certified product is shipped, especially processed products.
The
Terms of Use of LFP Marks do not currently forbid sales of LFP certified product outside of the province or region for which the certification was given, but do state that no LFP Point of Sale (POS) material can be used and no claims related to LFP certification can be made to promote LFP certified product outside of the province or region for which it is certified. Licensees using said POS material in violation of the licensing agreement will have their certification revoked. The brand guidelines for licensees will provide further details on the appropriate use of the LFP certification mark.
Background
The LFP certification mark is the central tool for identifying LFP certified product. The mark indicates that the product has been produced, processed, and distributed in one province or region for consumption in that province or region. LFP certified farmers, processors, and food companies who have signed a license agreement with LFP are entitled to use the mark in the province or region where they are located.
Given the current global nature of our food system, LFP recognizes that LFP certified product may "leak" out of the province or region in which certification was granted. Many farmers, processors, and food companies, though committed to expanding local markets, sell significant volumes of product through third-party brokers and distributors (most of whom sell in many provinces) in order to maintain the viability of their operations. In so doing, they lose control over the movement of their goods.
LFP builds new local supply chain relationships. As local markets expand, many farmers, processors, and food companies hope to access these supply chains to avoid supply relationships that may divert product out of province or region. With LFP currently operating only in Ontario, no other region of the country can yet use a regional or provincial LFP certification mark. However, as the LFP programme expands, processors with multiple plants will be able to source product from local producers in the region of sale rather than from out of province suppliers, further supporting the development of local supply chains.
Requiring farmers, processors, and food companies to develop and affix separate labels for products that will be sold both farm direct and through brokers and distributors creates significant logistical difficulties, including separate label runs, distinct warehousing, more complex inventory control, and transport segregation. Such challenges may make participation in the LFP programme unfeasible, reduce the number of participants, and ultimately hinder the development of local sustainable food systems.
Identifying LFP Certification in a Multi-ingredient Product
Multi-ingredient products are subject to the following specific requirements for LFP certification:
- A multi-ingredient product can be identified as LFP Certified Local Sustainable and bear the LFP certification mark, provided that greater than 95% (by mass or fluid volume, excluding added water and salt) of the ingredients are obtained from LFP certified production.
- A multi-ingredient product can be identified as “made with LFP certified ingredients” and bear the appropriate “made with LFP certified ingredients” certification mark provided that 50% or more (by mass or fluid volume, excluding added water and salt) of the ingredients are obtained from LFP certified production.
- Products containing less than 50% (by mass or fluid volume, excluding added water and salt) of ingredients that are LFP certified may have the LFP certified ingredient(s) identified as LFP certified in the list of ingredients. No LFP certification mark can be used.
All ingredients that are contained in the final composition of a product and comprise the basis for an LFP claim must be certified by LFP beforehand.
Ingredient lists or recipes that contain ingredient percentages by mass or fluid volume and that are being used to demonstrate any basis for an LFP claim must be made available to LFP inspectors and/or auditors for each and every product bearing a LFP certification mark.
LFP encourages processors to avoid using GE-derived ingredients or processing aids.
All use of any LFP certification mark is conditional to a licensing agreement being in place.
LFP GMO Policy
Local Food Plus (LFP) does not permit in its programme plants or livestock destined directly for human consumption that are derived from genetically modified constructs. Site inspectors examine records to determine if any seed varieties, livestock semen, embryos, or other genetics intended for LFP certification have been produced with genetically modified technologies.
LFP livestock producers are encouraged and assisted to source non-GMO feeds if and when they are available. LFP will continue supporting efforts to develop non-GMO supply chains for livestock feed and markets for livestock raised without feed containing GMOs. However, since government regulations do not currently require segregation or identification of GMOs, most livestock feed is formulated with co-mingled supply. Therefore, LFP has found it unrealistic to require that all participants feed verified non-GMO rations at this time.
LFP will provide support in validating the claims of LFP certified producers who feed verified non-GMO rations to their animals (including those who also carry organic certification) and wish to sell to buyers who want non-GMO product.
Background
There is significant debate about the compatibility of current applications of GMO technologies with environmental sustainability. This debate rests primarily with cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Critics believe that the process by which a product is developed is as important to examine as the end product, and see unique problems with rDNA and related technologies. Many of these critics also challenge crops that result from mutagenesis or “traditional” plant breeding, but believe genetically modified technologies represent a significant departure from other approaches. The major difference between traditional and modern biotechnology lies with the ability to transfer genes between different species. Given this, Local Food Plus (LFP) does not use the novel food and crops conception employed by the Canadian government. LFP does not consider the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture in its definition of modern biotechnology.
LFP’s assessment is that there is a significant group of consumers and sustainability and health advocates who wish to avoid GMOs and are willing to support a market premium to ensure that the food they are eating is not derived from genetically-modified constructs. These are among the consumers LFP targets in order to expand higher value markets for farmers who meet standards for environmental and social responsibility and achieve LFP Certification.
Practical implicationsNot permitted
Farmers
- planting genetically-modified seeds or transplants on lands designed for LFP Certification
- using livestock semen, embryos, or other genetics produced with genetically modified technologies
- rearing genetically-modified animals
Processors
- processing genetically modified crops and animal products
Permitted
Farmers
- using GMO-derived veterinary biologicals from industrial processes, provided they are applied in a manner consistent with LFP standards
- using GMO-derived pheromones from industrial processes for insect monitoring, provided they are used in a manner consistent with LFP standards
- feeding co-mingled (non-GMO and GMO) livestock rations
Processors
- using GMO-derived processing aids developed in closed industrial systems